ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Electric Wire in the Urinary Bladder: Surgical Challenges and Comprehensive Literature Insights.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesAn electric wire inserted into the bladder or urethra presents a specific challenge that is frequently encountered in such cases: the potential formation of a tight knot, making extraction nearly impossible. The primary objective of this study was to share our personal experience with patients who had intravesical electric cable insertions and to provide an extensive literature review, offering detailed insights into the various strategies reported for managing such foreign body cases.
methodsOf the four cases with a foreign body in the lower urinary tract, two involved patients aged 19 and 53, respectively, who had inserted an electric cable. During their attempt at self-removal, they developed an intravesical knot, as confirmed by radiographic imaging.
resultsIn the first case, a bipolar approach was used: a cystoscope was inserted transurethrally into the bladder alongside the cable, while a laparoscopic trocar was introduced suprapubically. Using laparoscopic scissors, the cable was successfully cut and removed. In the second case, due to the cable's size, a direct cystotomy was performed. At the 3-month follow-up, the uroflowmetry results were normal for both patients. A psychiatric evaluation revealed no abnormalities in the first patient, while the second patient was diagnosed with polyembolokoilamania.
conclusionsThe removal of self-inserted electric cables from the urethra and bladder is a challenging procedure, often requiring the urologist's creativity to prevent potential complications. Many cases can be resolved endoscopically; however, even this minimally invasive approach must be tailored to each case to provide the most suitable solution for the patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.